5 ms·

I couldn't believe the WSJ Editorial Board came out with an article saying otherwise. Wouldn't being blatantly factually incorrect about business analysis hurt

by sp332 6y ago

I couldn't believe the WSJ Editorial Board came out with an article saying otherwise. Wouldn't being blatantly factually incorrect about business analysis hurt their reputation among their target audience?

vernie 6y ago
Not Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal! Say it ain't so!
- dang 6y ago
  Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've been doing it a ton and we ban that sort of account. We're trying for something a bit different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Pfhreak 6y ago
Editorial board's audience is "my tribe", and I don't believe that "my tribe" ever really has much of a factual requirement. I know I unconsciously support the positions of my tribe more those of not my tribe. I suspect that the target audience of WSJ is inclined to like WSJ no matter what the editorial board pursues as long as they stay within their tribal lane.
- sp332 6y ago
  That's true to some extent, but when it hits people in their wallets, it starts to break down somewhat. Taking the wrong side of this bet could lose businesses really large amounts of money.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I couldn't believe the WSJ Editorial Board came out with an article saying otherwise. Wouldn't being blatantly factually incorrect about business analysis hurt their reputation among their target audience? Who do you imagine the audience is for the editorial pages of the WSJ? Even long before Murdoch took it over, that part of the paper has a very different reputation and appeal than the rest.
- sp332 6y ago
  Well it's not just a random "editorial", it's a position piece from the editors. That's why it makes the rest of the paper suspect.
  - SiempreViernes 6y ago
    The WSJ Editorial board was writing editorials outright denying climate change as late as 2016, so it's not like they have a strong track record to sully.
ashtonkem 6y ago
You need to mentally downgrade your expectations of the WSJ editorial board; this isn’t new behavior at all. If you look for it, you’ll notice the naked contempt that the WSJ news side has for their editorial board, and occasionally post “yeah, those were all lies that the editorial board just said” pieces.
- sp332 6y ago
  Yeah I guess I hadn't noticed that.
hristov 6y ago
The target audience of the WSJ has learned long time ago to treat the editorial board as the crazy uncle you ignore at Christmas gatherings. The WSJ has arguably the best news gathering organization in the US. Their editorial board is a joke in comparison and nobody takes them seriously. They usually take the side of the rich against anybody, so I am sure most old school WSJ readers appreciate that but that does not mean one should go as far as believing them. It is not unusual for the news section and the editorial section to take completely opposing positions on an issue. (I think they did that this past summer on the issue of effectiveness of masks.)
- mehlmao 6y ago
  I don't currently pay for news. I would be willing to pay extra for a subscription to a reputable newspaper if they would assure me that the money wouldn't go to the editorial board.
arkis22 6y ago
You should always be doubtful of the thesis from editorial articles, but you could be less contemptuous... and more correct. >...between the mornings of Feb. 7 and Feb. 11, wind as a share of the state’s electricity fell to 8% from 42%, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). >Gas-fired plants produced 43,800 MW of power Sunday night and coal plants chipped in 10,800 MW—about two to three times what they usually generate at their peak on any given winter day—after wind power had largely vanished. In other words, gas and coal plants held up in the frosty conditions far better than wind turbines did. https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-spins-into-the-wind-11613605698?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-spins-into-the-wind-11613... so wind power cratered and other sources are running at 2-3x their normal despite problems from the cold like equipment freezing and water at water intake facilities freezing. this is despite a just in time operational mindset that is causing shortages of natural gas. power plants are shutting down because they don't have gas to burn. so you can't blame it on wind power really. but your comment is fantastically derisive.
- wffurr 6y ago
  Not sure how to reconcile those numbers with the OP and other sources.
  - arkis22 6y ago
    the 42 to 8 statistic is from a government organization. generation is not equal to consumption because texas lacks batteries to store excess energy. the politifact article is correct that the failure is on carbon based plants, and its on plants that are not used to cold weather for obvious reasons. but its also silly because the implication is that you just need more windmills. which is obviously silly because texas has one of the highest wind energy %s in the US. but carbon based plants are running 3 times as hot as theyre used to and plants are shutting down because they dont have fuel. So you obviously need carbon fuel to help out. the carbon plants are stepping up as much as they can but its not enough. thats it. no huge conspiracy theory. but lots of people like to make fun of the other side. they need more power, and you cant magically sprout up wind turbines
throwawaysea 6y ago
It’s not clear to me who to believe. This fact check claims only 4 GW of wind power was down but the link that precedes that claim doesn’t actually state that. Meanwhile the WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002) claims 42% of power came from wind in the week before the freeze but there’s no sourcing of that either.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  Believe primary sources that you can read and understand yourself. That’s it. Sad that we’ve come to this, but I had to adopt that policy last year for obvious reasons.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    This other source claims 16 GW of renewable energy, mostly wind, is offline as compared to 30 GW of thermal sources (gas, coal, nuclear). That’s a very different claim from Politifact’s figure of 4 GW of wind offline. However Politifact frames it as 4 GW of wind experiencing problems (presumably meaning freezing problems and not just lack of wind). That seems like a spin of a different kind from the WSJ editorial. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... EDIT: even more bizarrely, a different fact check from Politifact relating to the Texas outages claims yet another loss figure for wind power of only 2 GW, disagreeing with their other fact check: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/17/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-falsely-blames-green-new-deal-wind-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/17/tucker-car...
- pixl97 6y ago
  If the weather was very moderate then you can get a very high renewables percentage, but that is only because total use is very low.

by sp332 6y ago

vernie 6y ago

Not Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal! Say it ain't so!

dang 6y ago
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've been doing it a ton and we ban that sort of account. We're trying for something a bit different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Pfhreak 6y ago

Editorial board's audience is "my tribe", and I don't believe that "my tribe" ever really has much of a factual requirement. I know I unconsciously support the positions of my tribe more those of not my tribe. I suspect that the target audience of WSJ is inclined to like WSJ no matter what the editorial board pursues as long as they stay within their tribal lane.

sp332 6y ago
That's true to some extent, but when it hits people in their wallets, it starts to break down somewhat. Taking the wrong side of this bet could lose businesses really large amounts of money.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I couldn't believe the WSJ Editorial Board came out with an article saying otherwise. Wouldn't being blatantly factually incorrect about business analysis hurt their reputation among their target audience? Who do you imagine the audience is for the editorial pages of the WSJ? Even long before Murdoch took it over, that part of the paper has a very different reputation and appeal than the rest.

sp332 6y ago
Well it's not just a random "editorial", it's a position piece from the editors. That's why it makes the rest of the paper suspect.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  The WSJ Editorial board was writing editorials outright denying climate change as late as 2016, so it's not like they have a strong track record to sully.

ashtonkem 6y ago

You need to mentally downgrade your expectations of the WSJ editorial board; this isn’t new behavior at all. If you look for it, you’ll notice the naked contempt that the WSJ news side has for their editorial board, and occasionally post “yeah, those were all lies that the editorial board just said” pieces.

sp332 6y ago
Yeah I guess I hadn't noticed that.

hristov 6y ago

The target audience of the WSJ has learned long time ago to treat the editorial board as the crazy uncle you ignore at Christmas gatherings. The WSJ has arguably the best news gathering organization in the US. Their editorial board is a joke in comparison and nobody takes them seriously. They usually take the side of the rich against anybody, so I am sure most old school WSJ readers appreciate that but that does not mean one should go as far as believing them. It is not unusual for the news section and the editorial section to take completely opposing positions on an issue. (I think they did that this past summer on the issue of effectiveness of masks.)

mehlmao 6y ago
I don't currently pay for news. I would be willing to pay extra for a subscription to a reputable newspaper if they would assure me that the money wouldn't go to the editorial board.

arkis22 6y ago

You should always be doubtful of the thesis from editorial articles, but you could be less contemptuous... and more correct. >...between the mornings of Feb. 7 and Feb. 11, wind as a share of the state’s electricity fell to 8% from 42%, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). >Gas-fired plants produced 43,800 MW of power Sunday night and coal plants chipped in 10,800 MW—about two to three times what they usually generate at their peak on any given winter day—after wind power had largely vanished. In other words, gas and coal plants held up in the frosty conditions far better than wind turbines did. https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-spins-into-the-wind-11613605698?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-spins-into-the-wind-11613... so wind power cratered and other sources are running at 2-3x their normal despite problems from the cold like equipment freezing and water at water intake facilities freezing. this is despite a just in time operational mindset that is causing shortages of natural gas. power plants are shutting down because they don't have gas to burn. so you can't blame it on wind power really. but your comment is fantastically derisive.

wffurr 6y ago
Not sure how to reconcile those numbers with the OP and other sources.
- arkis22 6y ago
  the 42 to 8 statistic is from a government organization. generation is not equal to consumption because texas lacks batteries to store excess energy. the politifact article is correct that the failure is on carbon based plants, and its on plants that are not used to cold weather for obvious reasons. but its also silly because the implication is that you just need more windmills. which is obviously silly because texas has one of the highest wind energy %s in the US. but carbon based plants are running 3 times as hot as theyre used to and plants are shutting down because they dont have fuel. So you obviously need carbon fuel to help out. the carbon plants are stepping up as much as they can but its not enough. thats it. no huge conspiracy theory. but lots of people like to make fun of the other side. they need more power, and you cant magically sprout up wind turbines

throwawaysea 6y ago

It’s not clear to me who to believe. This fact check claims only 4 GW of wind power was down but the link that precedes that claim doesn’t actually state that. Meanwhile the WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002) claims 42% of power came from wind in the week before the freeze but there’s no sourcing of that either.

jkhdigital 6y ago
Believe primary sources that you can read and understand yourself. That’s it. Sad that we’ve come to this, but I had to adopt that policy last year for obvious reasons.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  This other source claims 16 GW of renewable energy, mostly wind, is offline as compared to 30 GW of thermal sources (gas, coal, nuclear). That’s a very different claim from Politifact’s figure of 4 GW of wind offline. However Politifact frames it as 4 GW of wind experiencing problems (presumably meaning freezing problems and not just lack of wind). That seems like a spin of a different kind from the WSJ editorial. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-st... EDIT: even more bizarrely, a different fact check from Politifact relating to the Texas outages claims yet another loss figure for wind power of only 2 GW, disagreeing with their other fact check: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/17/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-falsely-blames-green-new-deal-wind-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/17/tucker-car...
pixl97 6y ago
If the weather was very moderate then you can get a very high renewables percentage, but that is only because total use is very low.